Agreed. 7 and 8. On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:35 PM, David Tucker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I assume that “move to Java 1.8” implies “support Java 1.8 as well as Java > 1.7”, not “support Java 1.8 and exclude Java 1.7”. > > Regards, > David > > > On Jul 8, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't think there is a good reason. I think the main issue was (at > some > > point) the tests weren't working with Java 8. Do you want to try to run > > the complete test suite and see if we have outstanding issues to move to > > Java 8? > > > > Aditya might remember more... > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Is there a reason we have an enforcement on Java versions as defined in > >> the top-level pom.xml: [1.7, 1.8)? The code compiles for me just fine > >> w/1.8. Is this merely > >> historical residue that can be relaxed or is there some deeper reason > why > >> Drill won’t/can’t work with 1.8? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andrew > >
